IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.658 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
JAYARAMAIAH SON OF LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
(BY SRI KRISHNA MOORTHY D., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
... APPELLANT 3. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU.
4. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.37103 OF 2010 (KLR-RR/SUR) DATED 19.01.2011.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order 19.01.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.37103 of 2010, by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The case of the appellant is that he obtained a judgment and decree dated 12.12.2001, in O.S.No.464 of 2016, before the Additional Second Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, against the defendant – State. The said suit was for a decree of declaration and injunction, that the appellant is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and for injunction. The judgment and decree was an exparte order.
3. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the defendants in R.A.No.35 of 2003, before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution.
4. In the interregnum, the lands were acquired by the Respondent–BDA. However, the State has not granted any compensation to the appellant. Hence, they filed Writ Petition No.13242 of 2006, wherein the Tahsildar was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the representation dated 13.07.2006. Since the same was not done, the instant writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the order of the Civil Court cannot be accepted. That the action of the officials is tainted and various observations were made by the learned Single Judge and consequently the writ petition was dismissed. The plea of the petitioner is that he having a declaration and injunction, he is entitled for the compensation of the land, which was acquired by the State. That the judgment and decree has attained finality.
5. The said contention is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Firstly, the observations made by the learned Single Judge are the manner in which the decree has been obtained. The defendants in the said suit were the Special Deputy Commissioner and the State Government. They have been held exparte. The appeal filed by them has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, that only indicates the manner in which the court has passed the decree, as well as the manner in which the defendants have conducted themselves.
7. It is further not disputed that the name of the petitioner was deleted from the records in the year 2000 and name of the State was entered therein. The petitioner thereafter, submitted a representation dated 13.07.2006 seeking to correct the same. Since nothing had happened, he filed a Writ Petition No.13242 of 2006. By an order dated 11.04.2007, the Tahsildar was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner has not pursued the matter. On the contrary, he has abandoned his plea to get his name re-entered in the records. He has approached the Civil Court and obtained an exparte decree against the defendants. This clearly indicates that none of the legal rights of the petitioner has been infringed by the State. The acquisition of the land is much prior to the filing of the suit by the petitioner. The decree obtained is an exparte order.
8. The order deleting the name of the petitioner was challenged by him in case No.RRT.CR.2/2000-2001. By a common order dated 03.08.2001, a finding was recorded to the effect that the FSL report would indicate that the documents relied upon by the petitioner herein, through the saguvali chit are concocted. That the signatures of the Tahsildar did not tally with the signatures on the saguvali chit. Consequently, the Tahsildar passed an order. Hence, the plea of the petitioner that they have a lawful saguvali chit is incorrect. It is nothing but a fraud committed by the appellant.
9. The name of the petitioner has been deleted from the records to which there is no challenge by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land stood in the name of the petitioner as on the date of the acquisition or any other date, to enable the grant of compensation. In order to hold the appellant being entitled for the compensation, necessarily his name have to be indicated in the records as being owner of the land in question. Admittedly, the name of the appellant does not find a place in the records as on the date of the acquisition. The appellant has accepted the said order and has done nothing about it. Under these circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-